JOSE ANTONIO LEVISTE VS VS JUDGE ELMO ALAMEDA ALAMEDA Facts:
Leviste was charged with homicide for the death of Rafael de las Alas before the RT RTC of Makati. Makati. The Branch, Branch, presid presided ed by Jdge Ala!eda Ala!eda,, forthwith forthwith issed issed a " co!!it!ent order against petitioner who was placed nder police cstody while con#ne con#ned d at the Makati Makati Medica Medicall Center Center.. Levis Leviste te posted posted a cash cash bond bond which which was was approved. The private co!plainants$heirs of de las Alas #led an %rgent &!nibs Motion praying for the defer!ent of the proceedings to allow the pblic prosector to re$e'a!ine the evidence on record or to condct a reinvestigation to deter!ine the proper o(ense. The RTC thereafter issed the &rder granting the !otion by the co!plainants, co!plainants, ths, allowing the prosection to condct a reinvestigation. reinvestigation. Later, the trial cort issed the other order that ad!itted the A!ended )nfor!ation for !rder and directed the issance of a warrant of arrest. *etitioner +estioned these two orders before the appellate cort. %pon arraign!ent, arraign!ent, the petitioner refsed refsed to plead. The trial cort entered the the plea plea of not not gil gilty ty for for hi!. hi!. *rio *riorr to this this,, the the peti petiti tion oner er #led #led an %rge %rgent nt Application for Ad!ission Ad!ission to Bail -' Abndanti Catela, which the trial cort granted on the grond that the evidence of gilt of the cri!e of !rder is not strong. The trial cort went on to try the petitioner nder the A!ended )nfor!ation. Then, the trial cort fond the petitioner gilty of ho!icide. ro! the trial cort/s decision, the petitioner #led an appeal to the CA. The appellate cort con#r!ed the decision of the trial cort. The petitioner/s !otion for reconsideration was denied. 0ence, this petition to the 1C. )sse2 3&4 R-1*&45-4T J%56- 10&%L5 0A70A7- A AT T L-A1T ALL&3-5 ALL&3-5 *-T)T)&4-R81 M&T)&4 &R A 0-AR)46 &R J%5)C)AL 5-T-RM)4AT)&4 & *R&BABL- CA%1Rling2 There are two kinds of deter!ination deter!ination of probable probable case2 e'ective e'ective and 9dicial. The e'ective e'ective deter!ination deter!ination of probable probable case is one !ade dring preli preli!in !inary ary invest investiga igatio tion. n. )t is a fncti fnction on that that prop properl erly y pertai pertains ns to the pbli pblic c prosector who is given a broad discretion to deter!ine whether probable case e'ists and to charge those who! he believes to have co!!itted the cri!e as de#ned by law and ths shold shold be held for trial. trial. &therwise stated, stated, sch o:cial has the +asi$9dicial athority to deter!ine whether or not a cri!inal case !st be #led in cort. cort. 3hether 3hether that fnction fnction has been correc correctly tly discharged discharged by the pblic prosector,
i.e.,
whether he has !ade a correct ascertain!ent of the e'istence of
probable case in a case, is a !atter that the trial cort itself does not and !ay not be co!pelled to pass pon. ;<<" The 9dicial deter!ination of probable case is one !ade by the 9dge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest shold be issed against the accsed. The 9dge !st satisfy hi!self that based on the evidence sb!itted, there is necessity for placing the accsed nder cstody in order not to frstrate the ends of 9stice. )f the 9dge #nds no probable case, the 9dge cannot be forced to isse the arrest warrant. The rles do not re+ire cases to be set for hearing to deter!ine probable case for the issance of a warrant of arrest of the accsed before any warrant !ay be issed. ;=>" *etitioner ths cannot, as a !atter of right, insist on a hearing for 9dicial deter!ination of probable case. Certainly, petitioner ?cannot deter!ine beforehand how crsory or e'hastive the ;9dge/s" e'a!ination of the records shold be ;since t"he e'tent of the 9dge8s e'a!ination depends on the e'ercise of his sond discretion as the circ!stances of the case re+ire.@
